The infection preventionist (IP) should start by comparing SSI rates between the acute-care operating room and the stand-alone surgery center. This direct comparison will help determine if there is a statistically significant difference in infection rates and guide further investigation.
Step-by-Step Justification:
Identify Trends:
Compare SSI rates between the two locations over a set period to identify patterns.
Assess Contributing Factors:
Look at factors such as patient population, antibiotic prophylaxis, surgical techniques, environmental controls, and adherence to infection prevention protocols.
Validate Surveillance Data:
Ensure that consistent SSI surveillance methodologies are used at both locations to avoid discrepancies.
Why Other Options Are Incorrect:
A. Initiate prospective surveillance for SSIs in hysterectomies performed at the stand-alone surgery center:
Prospective surveillance is beneficial but does not immediately answer the surgeon’s concern about existing infections.
B. Compare the most recent post-hysterectomy SSI surveillance data from the surgery center with those of the previous 12 months:
This approach only looks at trends at the surgery center without comparing it to the acute-care setting.
C. Initiate post-hysterectomy SSI surveillance in hysterectomy patients to verify accuracy of current surveillance methodology:
This step is secondary. Before initiating new surveillance, a direct comparison should be made using existing data.
CBIC Infection Control References:
APIC Text, "Surgical Site Infection Surveillance and Prevention Measures".
Submit